global warming

A place to discuss casual topics amongst spiritual friends.
Locked
User avatar
Polar Bear
Posts: 1348
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 7:39 am

Re: global warming

Post by Polar Bear »

Interesting article here:
Conclusions. A review of research on past temperatures and variations led us to the following conclusions:
1. Climate is in continual flux: the average annual temperature is usually either rising or falling and the temperature is
never static for a long period of time.

2. Observed climatic changes occurred over widespread areas, probably on the global scale.

3. Climate changes must be judged against the natural climatic variability that occurs on a comparable time scale. The
Little Ice Age, Medieval Warm Period, and similar events are part of this natural variability. These events correspond to global
changes of 1 - 2 degrees C.

4. Global temperatures appear to be rising, irrespective of any human influence, as Earth continues to emerge from the
Little Ice Age. If the temperature increase during the past 130 years reflects recovery from the Little Ice Age, it is not
unreasonable to expect the temperature to rise another 2 to 2.5 degrees Celsius to a level comparable to that of the Medieval
Warm Period about 800 years ago. The Holocene Epoch, as a whole, has been a remarkably stable period with few extremes
of either rising or falling temperatures, as were common during Pleistocene glacial and interglacial periods. Nevertheless, the
Holocene has been, and still is, a time of fluctuating climate.

5. Climatic changes measured during the last 100 years are not unique or even unusual when compared with the
frequency, rate, and magnitude of changes that have taken place since the beginning of the Holocene Epoch. Recent fluctuations
in temperature, both upward and downward, are well within the limits observed in nature prior to human influence.

https://www.dmr.nd.gov/ndgs/Newsletter/ ... wrmw99.pdf
"I don't envision a single thing that, when developed & cultivated, leads to such great benefit as the mind. The mind, when developed & cultivated, leads to great benefit."

"I don't envision a single thing that, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about such suffering & stress as the mind. The mind, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about suffering & stress."
Buckwheat
Posts: 970
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:39 am
Location: California USA

Re: global warming

Post by Buckwheat »

danieLion wrote:Ever heard of the Observer Effect, The Copenhagen Interpreation, The Uncertainty Principle? Ever taken a college course in statistics, research methods, philosophy of science, history of science, etc...?

I have. Am I a trained professional or an amateur?
Thank you for the condescending assumptions (I am familiar with all of these topics). I was referring to a trained professional in the topic being discussed (climate). I am an engineer, but also willing to admit that I am an amateur in regard to climate. You mentioned nothing of being fully engaged in studying climate, so I would have to assume you are also an amateur on the topic. If you have specific, verifiable evidence that some data or interpretation are not trustworthy, then by all means present it.
Sotthī hontu nirantaraṃ - May you forever be well.
Buckwheat
Posts: 970
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:39 am
Location: California USA

Re: global warming

Post by Buckwheat »

Hi Polarbudda101,
Your post deserves a thoughtful resonse, which I don't have time for right now.

The article you cite is written by the North Dakota Geological Survey, funded by tax dollars paid by the fossil fuel industry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Dakota_oil_boom

In general, geologists are not trained to study climate in detail, although there is definitely overlap. Also, many geologists are funded by the fossil fuel industry.
Sotthī hontu nirantaraṃ - May you forever be well.
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: global warming

Post by Alex123 »

Buckwheat wrote:The article you cite is written by the North Dakota Geological Survey, funded by tax dollars paid by the fossil fuel industry.
Are you trying to imply that since the article was written by such and such, then it has to be wrong merely through that?

What about actual arguments, not the people who said it?
Buckwheat
Posts: 970
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:39 am
Location: California USA

Re: global warming

Post by Buckwheat »

Alex123 wrote:
Buckwheat wrote:The article you cite is written by the North Dakota Geological Survey, funded by tax dollars paid by the fossil fuel industry.
Are you trying to imply that since the article was written by such and such, then it has to be wrong merely through that?

What about actual arguments, not the people who said it?
No, I am just pointing out that we all need to pay attention to who are sources are. Just because somebody cites a source does not make it right or wrong. I don't have time to research this document further. I would rather spend time meditating so that I can develop the will power to stop clicking on this stupid thread. Personally, I am highly skeptical of anything published by the North Dakota gov't, as they are in the process of whoring themselves out to fossil fuel companies.
Sotthī hontu nirantaraṃ - May you forever be well.
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: global warming

Post by Alex123 »

Buckwheat wrote:No, I am just pointing out that we all need to pay attention to who are sources are.
We need to pay attention to arguments. Not simply who said them.
Buckwheat wrote:Just because somebody cites a source does not make it right or wrong.
Right. It is the arguments that matter.

Buckwheat wrote: Personally, I am highly skeptical of anything published by the North Dakota gov't, as they are in the process of whoring themselves out to fossil fuel companies.
Personally, I am skeptical of flawed arguments and using very limited data that shows what you want it to show.
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9062
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: global warming

Post by SDC »

Buckwheat wrote:I would rather spend time meditating so that I can develop the will power to stop clicking on this stupid thread.
Ha! Nice line, Bw!
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
User avatar
manas
Posts: 2678
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 3:04 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: global warming

Post by manas »

Hi everyone,

I just read something very interesting, that is of relevance to this debate:
Henrik Svensmark, of the National Space Institute in Copenhagen, has proposed that the strength of a solar cycle affects the Earth's climate. "This would not be surprising, given that much of our energy comes from the sun," Dr Soria says.
It is well known that cosmic rays, originating from the Milky Way and beyond, are constantly bombarding the solar system. When the rays enter the Earth's upper atmosphere, they may act as seeds for cloud droplets, according to the Danish model.
The sun's magnetic field acts as a partial shield against cosmic rays, Dr Soria says. "The stronger the sun's magnetic field, the more cosmic rays are deflected away from the Earth. As a result, a more active sun – with a stronger magnetic field – means fewer cosmic rays would reach the Earth's atmosphere. Hence fewer clouds and so a warmer Earth; a weaker sun has the opposite effect."
Supporters of this model emphasise that the two coldest periods in Earth's recent history – namely the 17th and early 19th centuries – coincided with the two weakest phases of solar activity, known respectively as the Maunder and Dalton minima.
"Cycle 24 is shaping up to be almost as weak as the Dalton minimum, after a series of several strong cycles in the late 20th century, known as the Grand Solar Maximum," Dr Soria notes.
"If Dr Svensmark's model is correct, this weak cycle will lead to a decrease in global temperatures over the next decade. In fact, the plateau in global temperatures over the last 16 years may already be an early effect of a weaker sun."


Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/technology/sci ... z2PLjlQiEH
kind regards :anjali:
To the Buddha-refuge i go; to the Dhamma-refuge i go; to the Sangha-refuge i go.
Buckwheat
Posts: 970
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:39 am
Location: California USA

Re: global warming

Post by Buckwheat »

Manas,
I hope this is accurate, but it certainly requires further inquiry before adopting it as fact. Up to this point, I never heard an actual prediction of future solar output, so I assumed the probability of solar output offsetting AGW to be equal to the probability of solar output compounding AGW. It would be nice to see more certainty of it offsetting AGW. The magnitude of the effect would still have to be studied, as current predictions for AGW are a change in temperatures several times larger than the variation over the last several hundred years (including the midievel warm period and the little ice age).
Sotthī hontu nirantaraṃ - May you forever be well.
User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 5584
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: global warming

Post by Kim OHara »

Buckwheat wrote:Manas,
I hope this is accurate, but it certainly requires further inquiry before adopting it as fact. Up to this point, I never heard an actual prediction of future solar output, so I assumed the probability of solar output offsetting AGW to be equal to the probability of solar output compounding AGW. It would be nice to see more certainty of it offsetting AGW. The magnitude of the effect would still have to be studied, as current predictions for AGW are a change in temperatures several times larger than the variation over the last several hundred years (including the midievel warm period and the little ice age).
Hi, Buckwheat and all,
The effect is tiny compared to the impact of the CO2 we are pumping into the system.
Polarbuddha, your geology professor is way out of line with the science he is supposed to be teaching. All of his points, I think, are answered here - http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php - and I would encourage you to read that page and the references it points to ... and then present it to your prof to see what he says. If he says it's nonsense, he's in line for a Nobel or its opposite, because there is no middle ground for a scientist: you either trust the science or you're not a scientist. :juggling:
Manas, I think that URL addresses most of your concerns, too.

:coffee:
Kim
User avatar
Ben
Posts: 18438
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:49 am
Location: kanamaluka

Re: global warming

Post by Ben »

Climate change report a wake-up call: Combet


The World Today
By Sabra Lane and Eleanor Hall
Updated 4 hours 11 minutes ago


Climate Change Minister Greg Combet says a new report is a wake-up call to those who deny global warming is a problem.

The Climate Commission's latest report warns that climate change is already increasing the intensity and frequency of extreme weather in Australia.

The report, which has been backed by Australia's top climate scientists and science bodies, says that in some cases Australia's climate has shifted permanently.

The rest is here:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-03/c ... rt/4607734
“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.”
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road

Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725

Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global ReliefUNHCR

e: [email protected]..
billy_leo
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 9:22 am

Re: global warming

Post by billy_leo »

I read a book that it said the emotion may cause the the weather changes :reading:
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: global warming

Post by Alex123 »

Ben wrote:Climate Change Minister Greg Combet says a new report is a wake-up call to those who deny global warming is a problem.
As far as I know, nobody denies climate change. And both hot and cold climates pose their own challenges. This is Earth, not Heaven.

With birth we have: aging, illness, pains and death.
User avatar
Ben
Posts: 18438
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:49 am
Location: kanamaluka

Re: global warming

Post by Ben »

Alex123 wrote:
As far as I know, nobody denies climate change.
You are wrong.
“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.”
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road

Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725

Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global ReliefUNHCR

e: [email protected]..
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: global warming

Post by Alex123 »

Kim O'Hara wrote: All of his points, I think, are answered here - http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php - and I would encourage you to read that page and the references it points to ... and then present it to your prof to see what he says
Lets start with 1st one.
1.
"Climate's changed before" - Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing.
How much Carbon are we releasing vs how much carbon nature releases?

Another one:
4.
Science achieves a consensus when scientists stop arguing.
What about those few revolutionaries such as Galileo? Or Einstein? If Galileo followed prevailing scientific view of his time, he would not discover that earth rotates around the sun, not sun around the Earth.

Quite the opposite. Progress in science is all about critique and verifying of existing propositions.

"It hasn't warmed since 1998" For global records, 2010 is the hottest year on record, tied with 2005.
So, since 1998 only TWO years had hotter than recent temperatures. 1999-2004, 2006-2009, 2011-2013 were not. 11 years didn't break records, two did break recent records.

I also would like to remind you that when it says "such and such year was hottest on record" we need to remember that these compare temperatures to glacial or interglacial levels. For millions of years during Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and first part of Cenozoic the average temperature was MUCH higher than today. We happen to live in the interglacial period when Earth naturally bounces off its unusual LOWS.
16.
"Hockey stick is broken" Recent studies agree that recent global temperatures are unprecedented in the last 1000 years.
Earth existed for ~4.5 billion years. What about comparing temperature to more usual averages it was for MILLIONS of years.
19 "Glaciers are growing" Most glaciers are retreating, posing a serious problem for millions who rely on glaciers for water.
We are in interglacial, not glacial. This is what happens. There were periods of times when there was no, or even less snow than today.


I can go on if you wish.
Locked